Witness: "Yeah, you got blood all over, man. I looked over and he's got blood on the back of his head. You alright man?"

Zimmerman: "Ah, man this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him."

Witness: "Did you use a 9 or a 40?"

Zimmerman: "I used a 9."

Witness: "Did you call 911, yet?"

Zimmerman: "No, I already called. Can you just call my wife?"

How odd is it that the witness asked "did you use a 9 or a 40"?

And, how well did Zimmerman know this witness?

Having said all that, how do folks here square the growing possibility that the confrontation led (or occurred mainly?)  40-60 feet south of the T with the probable narrative that the initial blow was a sucker punch that led to both being on the ground/ sidewalk?

Chris Serino told the The Orlando Sentinel: 'Everything I have is adding up to what he says.' The released documents don't contradict that.

Serino's theory of the case is summarized in his March 13 Capias Request (pp. 26-27).

According to records checks, all of Zimmerman's suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects.

   * * *

The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern.

The first point is inaccurate. Zimmerman reported as suspicious  a white male in September 2005,  and a group of three men, two hispanic and one white, in June of 2007. Call logs.

Serino didn't explain what either point has to do with a manslaughter charge, in the capias request or anywhere else in the documents so far released.

For my argument, what matters is that Serino made both points without suggesting that Zimmerman had been anything but truthful. Serino's theory is not that Zimmerman must be guilty because he is lying and hiding something. Serino's theory is that Zimmerman is guilty even if everything he says is true.

"Witness 6

This witness lived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," a reference to mixed martial arts.

He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman."

To this:

"But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.

"I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk," he said.

He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.

He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.

"The black guy was on top," he said."

Martin has a right to be in fear, so if Zimmerman approaches close enough, maybe Martin did lay into him. I think under stand your ground he had a right. The gun obviously got exposed at some point. I don't care how good his football was, I expect he didn't think he could out run a bullet. So Trayvon was standing his ground against a heavier, suspiciously acting guy who'd been following him for a while, and had a gun.

I do not believe the intent of the law was to make the exemption available to both parties, so I believe the weight of the evidence clearly makes Martin the "threatened" party in all this. So it does not matter if he threw down on Zimmerman, and it doesn't matter if he was/did kick the crap out of him. Zimmerman is entitled to make a case for self-defense, but I don't think he gets the protections of stand your ground. That was already used up by Martin.